Agenda item

To review the decision of the Leader of the Council taken on 31 December 2021 as a result of the matter having been called in.

Cllr Ebril introduced this item and outlined the process to be followed. It was

re-iterated that only comments and questions relating to the points included

within the Reasons for Call-in would be permitted. Cllr Erbil welcomed Cllr

Maria Alexandrou as the Call-in Lead.

 

NOTED:

 

Cllr Alexandrou expressed that the 18-month trial has not been a success. The reduction in traffic has been too small to reach the objectives. Data is missing from the report on 8 of the 29 roads and is incoherent with the bus time survey.

 

No survey on walking has been done. The scheme has had no overall effect on pollution, noise, or speeding. The report stated the accident rate within the quieter neighbourhood increased after the scheme was implemented. The cycling survey shows cycling in the area has declined. Offences have increased by 8% across Bowes and residents have raised concerns.

 

Warnings were given by the London Ambulance Service and this was ignored. The scheme has failed in all its objectives, it has not increased active travel but increased congestion. The clear negative opinions in the consultation made by residents were ignored. The negative impacts of this scheme far outweigh the positivises.

 

Cllr Erbil thanked Cllr Alexandrou and invited Cllr Nesil Caliskan, Leader of the Council to respond:

 

The response from the administration was shared and published in advance which set out in detail response to specific points raised in the call in. The government and TFL recognise due to growth expected in the borough over the next 15 years we need to improve the quality of air. We recognise it has been difficult for residents to adjust. We recognise that we can improve the scheme, subsequent reports are to be produced that explores improving access for residents with disabilities and school streets in Bowes Primary school.

 

We are in constant communication with emergency services, areas are being reviewed due to their feedback. Pedestrian data was monitored which did have seasonal variation.

 

NOTED: Cllr Hockney raised a point of order on the code of conduct.

 

The Chair thanked Cllr Caliskan and Officers for their response and then asked members of OSC to consider any questions.

 

The following issues were raised by Members and responded to by Cllr Caliskan, Cllr Barnes, Doug Wilkinson

 

Q1. When will exemptions for those with disabilities be introduced and will they be standard in quieter neighbourhoods.?

A1. It is being worked on now, an amendment cannot be made until a scheme is made permanent. Each scheme is unique to an area.

 

Q2. The report shows air quality figures are negligible, was this disappointing?

A2. Air quality is not the only factor made in the decisions, we need to think of the bigger picture and longer term.

 

Q3. Why didn’t Haringey install the LTN at the same time?

A3. We cannot speak on behalf of them. We have had close contact with them throughout the process, they are now proposing to join our LTN.

 

Q4. People with disabilities disapproved of this scheme, how is it fair to consider disabled after the decision has been taken?

A4. Response to consultation was low at 4%. Those who have a disability or care responsibilities felt they was restricted; we are now looking at how we can help these people, and this will continue to be monitored. We have consulted with external experts to ensure we are compliant in all aspects of the process.

 

Q5. If everyone was obliged to have an electric car would the LTN be reversed?

A5. If this happened there would be reduced pollution but still be congestion on our roads. This scheme is to encourage active travel so the LTN would still be in place.

 

Q6. The consultation had a 75% opposition to the scheme, why is the administration overriding the majority?

A6. Correct figures are 52% opposition, which is 1.9% of the area.

 

Q7. Some residents have suggested having the entrance/exit in the South instead of North, has this been considered?

A7. It is in the report as an option, after consideration and on balance the current scheme as implemented gives the best solution. If members would like us to look at this again, we are happy to do this.

 

Q8. Can the bollards be changed to cameras?

A8. This is hugely costly, there is a one-off cost and maintenance. It also limits the opportunity to reclaim road space and include greenspace.

 

Q9. The LTN was paid for by the government as part of its net zero strategy, have you heard from secretary of the state about the scheme?

A9. We have not heard, but we have been given more funding. The short period for consultation was linked to us gaining the funding.

 

Q10. Since the start of the trial there has been 3 incidents with London Ambulance, can we have some more context on this?

A.10 We meet regular with them, they don’t raise the specific nature of incident but let us know where it happened. We make sure when changes are made this is updated by commercial software, so navigation is updated.

 

Q.11 Is this a quieter neighbourhood scheme or low traffic?

A.11 The low traffic scheme comes under the quieter neighbourhood umbrella.

 

Q.12 Are fines going down now people have got used to the LTN.

A.12 They have gone down 60% since it was first installed.

 

Q.13 Crime has gone up in the area, what considerations have been made to mitigate this as part of the report?

A.13 We have implemented changes in lighting which was highlighted by residents. The times they go on/off have changed and they have been made brighter.

 

 

Cllr Alexandrou summarised; if the scheme needs to change it has failed. The main purpose of the scheme was to significantly reduce traffic in the Bowes area to help the environment and encourage active travel. Traffic has been diverted onto longer journeys, there is no usable evidence it has evaporated.

 

The Overview & Scrutiny Committee considered the reasons provided for the

call-in and responses provided. Having considered the information, the

Committee agreed to confirm the original decision made by the Leader of the Council.

 

Councillors Aksanolgu, Demeriel, Ergin and Yusuf voted in favour of the decision. Councillors David-Sanders, Hockney and Levy voted to refer the descion back to the decision maker. The original decision was therefore agreed.

 

Cllr Ebril welcomed Cllr Daniel Anderson as the Call-in Lead for the second part of the call-in item.

 

NOTED:

 

Cllr Anderson expressed the data of the report does not reliably show the benefits and that they outweigh the harm caused to residents or the environment. The data does not show whether active travel has improved directly as a result of the scheme.

 

The post implementation traffic was conducted over five days, one of these was world no car day and London car free today which is not mentioned in the report. Another one of these days was impacted by Autumn 2021 petrol crisis which would have had an effect.

 

In response, the Leader explained many residents have written to them over a long period of time to address the climate crisis and this scheme addresses that. The methodology used for the data is standard, used in the industry across the board. She expressed that she has complete faith and thank for professionalism for all officers involved.

 

Richard Eason (Healthy Streets Programme Director) added that a range of specialist consultants as well as officers had an input in the report. The petrol crisis did not effect the data on traffic flows. The addendum made removed data from affected dates to consider the crisis. We are confident in the detailed analysis.

 

The following issues were raised by Members and responded to by Cllr Caliskan, Cllr Barns and Richard Eason:

 

Q1. How many pollution monitors are in the LTN and surrounding areas?

A1. There are two diffusion tubes and a primary air quality monitoring station on a406 by Bowes Park Primary School.

 

Q2. Congestion has been driven onto other roads, causing engine idling raising concern amongst residents. Could we have rolled out electric charging points all over the borough, have pollution monitors and a robust anti engine idling campaign?

A1. Another part of our toolkit involves rolling out EV points as a trial, if successful will be rolled out across the borough. We expect rapid charging stations being put in by giants will undercut everyone else. This is a long-term behaviour change programme which will take time, it is a challenging process in a challenging time.

 

Q3. We are in the top 5 London boroughs with high number of vehicles, what message has officers and the administration put out to reduce car ownership?

A3. The issue is on short journeys rather than getting rid of cars to help to reduce the number of cars on the road at any one time.

 

Q4. Does the scheme as its presented reliably represent its objectives?

A4. The data and report put together by officers with specialist knowledge and the decision maker confirmed she has complete faith in the professional judgement of the officers.  

 

Cllr Anderson summarised; the idea of traffic reduction and appropriate measures to be taken on climate change is supported. The issue is the data doesn’t back up the decision.

 

The Overview & Scrutiny Committee considered the reasons provided for the

call-in and responses provided. Having considered the information, the

Committee agreed to confirm the original decision made by the Leader of the Council.